Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Texas Governor Rick Perry is delivering speeches in Europe this week. As
Jennifer Rubin writes in the Washington Post, Perry is laying the groundwork
for his presidential campaign. He is trying to show that he has the “gravitas”
that the nation should seek in a president.

One is obliged to note that several of the leading
Republican contenders, supposedly those who traffic in big ideas, lack said
gravitas.

Rubin believes, as I do, that Perry’s speech points in
exactly the right direction. It deviates significantly from the policies and
approach articulated by our two most recent presidents.

Most especially, Rubin reports, Perry is not afraid to assert
the importance of our values. He finds no moral equivalence between Islamist
and Western values and refuses to placate those who want to destroy Judeo-Christian civilization.

In Rubin’s words:

Deriding
the notion that “the Middle East is ultimately no concern of ours” and
denouncing moral equivalency (“this confusion can weaken the confidence we need
in our own values – the values of Western Civilization”), he [Perry] reminds
his audience of what unapologetic moral clarity sounds like: “Their twisted
version of Islam amounts to a creed of human cruelty – pure sadism, and nothing
more. It matters that we understand all of this, for one reason
especially: Without confidence in the truth and goodness of our own
values the great moral inheritance of our own culture how are we
going to deal with the falsehood of theirs?”

Also, Perry takes a strong stand against the rising tide of
European anti-Semitism. As Rubin comments, our current president has been
conspicuously silent on the subject.

Perry will say this:

The hatreds of unassimilated radicals only draw
further attention to anti-Semitism in general. It’s a familiar problem in
a new time. In Europe it ranges as in times past from thuggish abuse
to desecration to commentaries on Israel that cover crude dislike in the veneer
of respectable opinion. There is a way to deal with anti-Semitism, and
it’s not by smiling politely and hoping that it goes away. The full force
of law, when people and property are harmed, is only the most obvious
response. Just as important is what Chancellor Merkel did a few weeks ago,
to her great credit, when she called this sin by its name. She has stated
in confident, unmistakable terms that tolerance ends where anti-Semitism
begins. It shaped Europe’s past, in ways that everyone regrets and no nation
can afford to let it shape Europe’s future.

And, in a vigorous denunciation
of those who exploit our tolerance to force us to accept their intolerance,
Perry will explain:

But to every extremist, it has to be made clear:
We will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your
intolerance. We will not let you destroy our peace with your violent
ideas. If you expect to live among us and yet plan against us to
receive the protections and comforts of a free society while showing none of
its virtues or graces then you can have our answer now: No, not on
our watch! You will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live
by. And if that comes as jarring news then welcome to civilization.

At a time when the American
president believes he must be even-handed, at a time when his even-handedness
seems mostly to require him to criticize Israel—especially for
defending itself against attacks-- and at a time when European countries like
Sweden and Great Britain have rewarded Palestinian belligerence and
intransigence by recognizing Palestine as a legitimate nation, the words of
Rick Perry ring out loud and clear.

Surely, the words of an American
president and even an aspiring American president exert an influence. How much we do not know.

But, it is certainly possible
that the election of Barack Obama has helped make anti-Semitism more
respectable in Europe. Such would not be the case under a President Perry.

In Rubin’s words:

The
speech leaves no doubt Perry is serious about national security, able to
express critical ideals and to lay out a compelling message, as well as
demonstrating he is capable of putting together a presidential campaign-level
team to advise and prepare him for an ambitious trip of this kind. Other
presidential candidates should take note: This is what a governor intent on
convincing the voters of his national security chops does. And for those in the
Senate trying to bob and weave on matters of war and peace: You may look craven
and erratic in comparison to Perry.

2 comments:

There is easy confusion is how to differentiate parts versus wholes. We want to condemn parts of Islam without needing to condemn all who have are religious and cultural Muslims. Otherwise we create enemies where they don't exist, and give added and unnecessary power to those we condemn

There's a similar issue for Anti-Semitism Vs Anti-Zionism. It is to the strategic advantage of leaders of Israel to consider their actions as a country to by synonomous with the needs of all Jews no matter where they live. And the false idea of Jews who speak against Israel are betraying themselves.http://www.rense.com/general48/zntiz.htm

If you ideally want Muslims to speak against their own fundamentalistic subgroups, you should also want Jews to speak against theirs as well.

And this has nothing to do with "moral relativism" but avoiding simple hypocrisy.